imported post
Interceptor_Knight wrote:
Here's the thing... you had better have your ducks in a row if you are going to file a suit regarding civil liberties. Please provide me examples where the Supreme Court has ruled on a municipality's permit system for peaceable assembly where they did not discriminate against a group based on their message being unpopular orthe potential to incite a strong reaction. The fact that we were not denied a permit helps keep them out of trouble. Our most legitimate point of contention is our position that the picnic does not fit the City Code definition of a Special Event.
Not sure what you are trying to say above.
Viewpoint discrimination is always unconstitutional. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) (holding that an injunction against nazi group planning to march with swastikas down American street in town where jews lived is a final order because it implicated First Amendment rights and must have expedited appeal procedures available) stands generally for the proposition that permits to assemble cannot be denied based upon the potential effect of extreme speech upon surrounding populations. It was actually the Illinois Supreme Court which acted to quash the injunction and the syllabus of that court opinions summarizesas follows:
“The Cook County Circuit Court, Joseph M. Wosik, J., enjoined defendant members of the National Socialist Party of America from conducting demonstrations in the village of Skokie, Illinois. The Illinois Appellate Court denied application for stay pending appeal and the Illinois Supreme Court denied petition for stay. Application for stay was treated as a petition for certiorari and the United States Supreme Court,
432 U.S. 43, 97 S.Ct. 2205, 53 L.Ed.2d 96, reversed and remanded for further proceeding. On remand, the Appellate Court, First District,
51 Ill.App.3d 9 Ill.Dec. 90, 366 N.E.2d 347, held that the village had not borne its heavy burden of overcoming the presumptively illegal prior restraint of defendants except with respect to the wearing of swastika on or off the person during demonstration. Party's petition for leave to appeal was allowed and the Supreme Court held that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and it cannot be enjoined under “fighting-words” exception to free speech, nor can anticipation of a hostile audience justify prior restraint.
As you know, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin trial courts have recently held or the jury found that open carry is not disorderly conduct, even if worn as a form of expressive conduct in the vicinity of a presidential candidate's rally site. Assembly cannot legallybe denied just because people might react to you or your speech is objectionable.
In
Skokie, at issue was a small demonstration planned to protest a requirement for the group to have INSURANCE to get a permit for a larger assembly in a park:
As the IL S. Ct. stated: “Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. In an affidavit attached to defendants' motion to dismiss, defendant Frank Collin, who testified that he was “party leader,” stated that on or about March 20, 1977, he sent officials of the plaintiff village a letter stating that the party members and supporters would hold a peaceable, public assembly in the village on May 1, 1977, to protest the Skokie Park District's requirement that the party procure $350,000 of insurance prior to the party's use of the Skokie public parks for public assemblies. The demonstration was to begin at 3 p. m., last 20 to 30 minutes, and consist of 30 to 50 demonstrators marching in single file, back and forth, in front of the village hall. The marchers were to wear uniforms which include a swastika emblem or armband. They were to carry a party banner containing a swastika emblem and signs containing such statements as “White Free Speech,” “Free Speech for the White Man,” and “Free Speech for White America.” The demonstrators would not distribute handbills, make any derogatory statements directed to any ethnic or religious group, or obstruct traffic. They would cooperate with any reasonable police instructions or requests.”
NOTE: Apparently insurance was not required by local ordinance for any group, but a requirement being imposed on the nazi group.
Generally, parks, street, and sidewalks are
public fora for a where folks can assemble and make speeches etc. without government interference, however, permits for such assemblies can be constitutional under the doctrine of time, place, and manner regulations. Again, to be constitutional, such regulations (including any insurance requirement) must never be rooted in viewpoint of the group to assemble or to the view of their speech. Further, the regulations must pass a high burden under strict scrutiny – if the regulation is challenged, the Defendant (government) must show that the regulations are required to accomplish a
compelling governmental interest, and that the regulations are both narrowly tailored[/b] to achieve that interest and that the regulations are the
least restrictive means to do so. That’s why normally permits are NOT needed to assemble unless they are going to be really big, require closure of a street, etc.
In the case at hand, the Green Bay Picnic, there appears to have been no injunction sought by the City against the group, hence raising the question as to why anyone was contacting the city and entering into negotiations over a non-issue; the picnic was not going to violate the city ordinance even as unconstitutionally vague as it is written, and frankly all legal hell would have broken loose on the City had they ticketed families assembling at a small picnic site just because a few press people showed up or onlookers became curious. Besides violating the
don’t ask don’t tell rule, and the
never ask permission rule, this conduct by one or more persons appears to be outright meddlesome, even if well meaning.
If you ask them, they will come!
Hopefully face to face meet ups occurs at the picnic site and folks can meet and all agree not to act this way ever again – this is a very bad precedent in agreeing to get a permit where none is needed
even on the face of the statute – other cities are going to copy this under monkey see monkey do doctrine making it harder for everyone.
, no pony tail as I am bald.
